is it A more use of special force, B global unity, or C stop invading the mid east..
2007-05-24 07:36:02 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Well, frankly I would say all three.
But look at (A) - what do you mean by special force? I would suggest Tom Clancy's "Spec Ops" on the history of special forces. Thanks largely to Hollywood, I think, we think of Special Forces as commandos who are simply great killers. In fact, their history is more in tuned with anti-insurgency and hearts-and-minds campaigns than people realize. So, I would put some emphasis on A as long as we go back to what they were supposed to be.
2007-05-24 08:44:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the way we are doing it right now is OK.
1. Topple any dictators that slaughter their own people.
2. Allow those said people to vote in their own new government representatives.
3. Train a new Army and Police force to support that new government
4. After said army and police are trained let them fight the insurgents on their own terms.
(We are on step three by the way.)
2007-05-24 15:04:14 · answer #2 · answered by SGT. D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Global unity will never happen and invading the middle east hasn't started yet, so what do you think professor bozo.
2007-05-24 14:58:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
C. stop sending troops into the "land of mohammad" and stop trying to bring "freedom" to the rest of the world.
D. Build up homeland security and national intelligence agencies to the point where the terrorists suceeding in carrying out an attack on American soil is 1,000,000 to 1.
2007-05-24 14:47:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Global terrorism is a lot like nuclear war, don't you get it?
The only winning move is to not play.
Phil
2007-05-24 15:03:25 · answer #5 · answered by CanadianFundamentalist 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
D kill everyone in the mid east then you won't have anyone to worry about.
2007-05-24 15:48:24 · answer #6 · answered by tommy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1). Recogize that there's no such thing as a "war on terror". Terror is a tactic, not an opponent.
2007-05-24 20:20:49 · answer #7 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
by coperating with the countries of the area to solve the the source of the probleme s. helping the area economically to raise the standaared of living and education , creating job opportunitis.
2007-05-24 14:58:29 · answer #8 · answered by snohi 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Let's just review the choices:
A) additional use of ineffectual, small-scale military tactics.
B) pure fantasy
C) surrender.
hmm... not a good set of options, so,
D) none of the above.
2007-05-24 14:40:44 · answer #9 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
When the war against drugs first. Stop drug proceeds, end allot of terrorist funding.
2007-05-24 15:40:00 · answer #10 · answered by internationalsnubber 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋